Template for Preparation by Member States of The

SMDno/2010/1457

Template for preparation by Member States of the

Evaluation Report on Implementation of Actions

co-financed by the European Return Fund

(Report set out in Article 50(2) (a) of Decision No 575/2007/EC)

Please fill in the enclosed template

(preferably in English, French or German)

and submit it to the Commission no later than 30 June 2010

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

1.  The enclosed template is intended to assist Member States in the preparation of the evaluation report which they have to submit to the Commission no later than 30 June 2010, as set out in Article 50(2) (a) of Decision No 575/2007/EC.

Please always use this format, as this is the only way to ensure a homogeneous evaluation across all Member States and for the Community wide evaluation subsequently.

You are free to add any further document you think can be useful in the context of this evaluation. If so, enclose them as an annex, but not as part of this template.

2.  When filling in this template please be as concrete as possible, providing facts, examples, figures, etc. - It is essential that the description can easily be understood by those who are familiar with the RF, but not necessarily familiar with the national programme concerned. Wherever relevant highlight national specificities.

3.  A maximum length of description is indicated for many items. As far as possible this limit should be respected.

4.  The analysis and assessment of the annual programmes under review start with a summary of the most important features of the multiannual programme and of the programmes approved by the Commission. The reason we ask for this is that we need to have a homogeneous presentation for the subsequent Community wide report. In this context, we think you are the best placed to identify the most relevant features of your programmes.

5.  When your opinion is asked for, please explain the reasons on which your opinion is based.

6. As the content of this mid term evaluation report is on implementation it is not required to have recourse to evaluation expertise: the report can be prepared by the Responsible Authority itself. However, for your convenience, you may choose to have recourse to evaluation expertise.

In any case please fill in first the questionnaire on the first page of the template.

Whether you had recourse to evaluation expertise or not, the evaluation report must always be signed by the Responsible Authority. The Responsible Authority remains responsible for its content.

Evaluation Report on Implementation of Actions

co-financed by the Return Fund

(Report set out in Article 50(2) (a) of Decision No 575/2007/EC)

Report submitted by the Responsible Authority of: (Member State)

Finland

Date:

30.6.2010

Name, Signature (authorised representative of the Responsible Authority):

Johanna Puiro

Deputy to the Director General,

Senior Adviser, Legal affairs

International Affairs Unit

Ministry of the Interior

Finland

Name of the contact person (and contact details) for this report in the Member State:

Mr Ville Similä

tel: + 358 7187 88267

Email: ville.simila(at)intermin.fi

GENERAL INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED BY THE RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY ON EVALUATION EXPERTISE AND ON METHODOLOGY

- Did you have recourse to evaluation expertise to prepare this report?

No

- If yes, for what part(s) of this report?

N/A

- Please explain what kind of evaluation expertise you had recourse to:

N/A

* In-house evaluation expertise (for instance, Evaluation department of the Ministry, etc.) : (please describe)

* External evaluation expertise: (please describe)

N/A

Brief description of the methodology used by the evaluation expertise

Important remark

Any evaluation expertise must be obliged by the Responsible Authority to:

- use this template, exclusively

- fully comply with any instruction, methodological note, maximum length, etc. set out in this template.

Evaluation report on the results and impacts of actions

co-financed by the European Return Fund

Contents

1. Summary of the Multiannual Programme: Analysis of requirements in the Member state and Strategy to achieve the objectives

2. Summary of the Annual Programmes 2008 and 2009

(excluding Technical Assistance measures and Information and Publicity)

3. Implementation of the programmes in the “awarding body” method

4. Implementation of the programmes in the “executing body” method

5. Summary description of the projects funded in the “awarding body” method and in the “executing body” method

6. Technical assistance - Information and Publicity

7. assessment of the implementation of the annual programmes 2008 and 2009

8. Overall assessment of the Responsible Authority on the implementation of the RF programmes 2008 through 2009

Part I

Summary of the Multiannual Programme 2008-2013

ANALYSIS OF REQUIREMENTS IN THE MEMBER STATE AND STRATEGY TO ACHIEVE THE OBJECTIVES

Reference documents to be used for this part:

- Your multiannual programme 2008-2013 as approved by the Commission,

in particular Parts 2 and 3 of the multiannual programme

- Any external evaluation of relevance to the items addressed below, if available

- Any other relevant information available to the Responsible Authority

1. ANALYSIS OF REQUIREMENTS IN THE MEMBER STATE

Please provide a summary of Part 2 of your multiannual programme (“Analysis of requirements in the Member State”)

A concise, but very concrete description is required. It is essential that the description can easily be understood by those who are familiar with the RF, but not necessarily familiar with your national programme. Wherever relevant highlight national specificities.

Maximum length: 1 page in total, broken down as set out below

- The requirements in the Member State in relation to the baseline situation

Due to the small amount of returnees (voluntary and forced) the measures are limited. This creates also one of the biggest challenges in the return management in Finland. Since there are only a few returns every year, every single case has to be managed individually and no common system has been put to place to guide, assist and monitor the returnees.

The implementation of the (forced) removals has been centralised nationally to the Helsinki Police Department. Due to the small amount of forced returns every year (especially escorted returns), each case is managed individually.

Re-integration is currently given very little support, amounting to minimal financial assistance. The subject has not been comprehensively studied. The restricted support system does not cater for the needs of special groups.

Enhancing the actions of the authorities and cutting down on processing times requires not only personnel development but a variety of special measures in different organizations. Cooperation and communication between different authorities, NGOs, municipalities and immigrant NGOs as well as with third countries should be improved. An integrated approach to both voluntary and forced return should be created.

- The operational objectives of the Member State designed to meet its requirements

The actions of the national authorities must be seen as a comprehensive entity aiming at a smoothly running immigration policy, including both voluntary and forced return. Cooperation and information systems must be developed at the national and international levels.

Operations evaluation and research are of primary importance in the orientation of development measures, and the development of effective return plans and programmes.

Voluntary returns should be promoted by enhancing information acquisition, publicity aimed at target communities and cooperation with target communities.

Creating a better multi-party cooperation structure between the authorities (including reception authorities, decision-makers and municipalities) and NGOs will improve effectiveness and the reliability of return arrangements.

2. STRATEGY TO ACHIEVE THE OBJECTIVES

Please provide a summary of Part 3 of your multiannual programme (“Strategy to achieve the objectives”), broken down by Priority (each of the four Priorities as defined in the Strategic Guidelines of the Commission - Decision C(2007)5822 of the Commission) as set out on the next pages.

Under each Priority, describe:

- the objective(s) pursued

- examples of key actions

- key actions considered as implementing specific priorities under the chosen priority

Finally list in a separate item all quantified objectives set out in Part 3 of your multiannual programme.

A concise, but very concrete description is required. It is essential that the description can easily be understood by those who are familiar with the RF, but not necessarily familiar with your national programme. Wherever relevant highlight national specificities.

A maximum length is indicated for each item.

Priority 1: Support for the development of a strategic approach to return management by Member States

Priority 1:

Steps will be taken to maintain and develop expertise and competence in return management. The development of integrated return management takes into account all dimensions of returns. A comprehensive assessment of the situation of returnees will have to be organised. Special attention will be paid to the situation and needs of vulnerable returnees.

Examples of measures:

1. Development of return plans and programmes particularly for the major returnee groups and for improving the situation of the most vulnerable returnees.
2. Management of voluntary and forced returns (including persons gone missing and detention), evaluation and research. Cooperation and measures to reduce circulation.
3. Cooperation with national and international organizations to support dignified and permanent return.

Actions implementing special voluntary return programmes and measures for vulnerable persons are implemented under specific priority 1.2. These actions can involve research to the subject as well as development of return plans and programmes for these groups.

Priority 2: Support for the cooperation between Member States in return management

The action will include cross-sectoral activities between Member States, for instance training events, seminars, expert exchange, visits and fact-finding missions.

Special focus is placed on the cooperation with the FRONTEX agency and with international organisations and non-governmental organisations.

Examples of measures:

1.  Organising training events, seminars and expert exchange between MS

2.  Establish mechanism and networks for the improved joint cooperation

3.  Develop effective, stable and lasting operational working relationship between authorities of different MS

4.  Design and organise integrated return plans in cooperation with other MS and where appropriate, the FRONTEX agency and NGOs with the aim of pooling different skills, experiences and resources of authorities of MS involved

Actions, where integrated return plans are designed and organised in cooperation with other MS and for instance with FRONTEX, are implemented under special priorities.

Priority 3: Support for specific innovative (inter)national tools for return management

Measures will be taken to set up and improve counselling and information measures. Publicity toward the target communities are a priority. Cooperation and agreements with third countries will also be developed, including consular cooperation and bilateral and trilateral agreements. Re-integration through different institutions and NGOs will also be supported. Another important part of this priority is to support the vulnerable returnees.

Examples of measures:

1.  Developing innovative information and counselling services to support and guide potential returnees.

2.  Developing innovative incentives to increase the number of voluntary returns.

3.  Developing innovative programmes to promote and develop return and re-integration.

4.  Developing mechanisms for post-return monitoring and support, with particular reference to vulnerable returnees, and monitoring of re-integration and security.

Actions developing innovative information and counselling services to support and guide potential returnees, to increase the number of voluntary returns, to promote return and re-integration and to setting up mechanisms for post return monitoring are implemented under specific priority 3.1.

Priority 4: Support for Community standards and best practices on return management

The aim is to create a multi-party cooperation structure between the authorities (including reception authorities, decision-makers and municipalities) and NGOs, involving information acquisition, information exchange, training, seminars and development programmes, bringing administrative sectors together.

Examples of measures:

1.  Developing a statistical system for monitoring voluntary and forced returns. Creating a reporting option for the electronic processing of immigration issues for generating statistics and cost reports regarding voluntary and forced returns.

2.  Creating an interface between the Database for Police Matters and the new Register of Aliens (UMA)

3.  Organizing cross-sectoral training and seminars for administrative and judicial authorities and for regional authorities and actors concerning international human rights standards and EU legislation with specific relevance to returns.

Actions where training, workshops, expert meetings and seminars are organised for different authorities, police, judges etc are implemented under specific priority 4.2.

Finally, list the most important indicators set out in Part 3 of the multiannual programme 2008-2013 and the corresponding quantified/qualitative targets, broken down by Priority:

Maximum 5 indicators for each Priority

Priority 1

(Main indicators, targets)

·  Number and quality of return plans developed

·  Number and quality of return programmes for major returnee groups and for vulnerable groups

·  Number of authorities trained on voluntary and forced return

·  Number and quality of evaluations and researches conducted on the voluntary and forced return

·  Number of measures to improve cooperation in return

Priority 2

(Main indicators, targets)

·  Number of training events, seminars and expert exchange organised

·  Number and quality of integrated return plans developed

·  Number and type of networks and mechanisms that support the cooperation between MS

·  Number and type of studies, researches and evaluations made

Priority 3

(Main indicators, targets)

·  Number and type of innovative information and counselling services

·  Number and type of innovative programmes to promote return and re-integration

·  Number and type of risk assessment programmes for vulnerable groups

·  Number and type of innovative programmes to promote return and re-integration

·  Number and type of mechanisms for post-return monitoring and support

Priority 4

(Main indicators, targets)

·  Number and type of statistical information on voluntary and forced returns

·  Number of trainings, seminars, workshops and expert meeting organised

·  Number of authorities trained

·  Amount and type of cooperation between MS

·  Number of best practises in returns and process management of other MS obtained.

------

Part II

SUMMARY OF THE ANNUAL PROGRAMMES